Horse and musket question

[cameronian]

I thought the cuirass was proofed?

My Napoleonic cuirassiers get a very small advantage against musketry, but a bigger advantage against other cavalry and no advantage against artillery. 

Wrong Napoleon; the cuirassiers of the second empire wore proofed cuirasses, excellent thread on TMP here where I post as Ramming - http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=262304

[burnaby64]

Thanks for that link, cameronian. An extremely interesting and informative thread.

[FierceKitty]

Then, of course, there's Clint Eastwood's testimony on the subject....

[clibinarium]

Surely the real value of cuirasses is that you can't be run through the body by enemy horsemen. Perhaps in terms of games it should confer an advantage in melee, but be of little use against fire?

[FierceKitty]

Duffy again: 18th century sword wounds in a cavalry melee were usually disabling cuts to the right forearm.

[Techno]

Phil,proofing was process of testing armour by subjecting it to a strike by a weapon. It's where the expression bulletproof comes from.

Thanks 'I'.
I'm never, ever going to catch up......But it's fun trying....And learning all sorts of new 'stuff'.
Cheers - Phil.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

In the Napoleonic period the Prussians abandoned the Cuirasseses'ses but still classified their heaviest cavalry as Curassiers, so for the 1806 army (the only part that Napoleon was worried about was the cavalry) in principles of war they are rated as high morale heavy cavalry, not as good as French Curassiers, but stil a threat!
It didn't help they were brigaded as support units for the infantry rather than being with the Dragoon divisions!

[Fenton]

I had always presumed that most cavalry that were 'killed' in battle was due to the mounts being killed and injured as much as the riders themselves

[mollinary]

Thought so. Do some research, folks; you may find you want to put in a few rewrites. Duffy cites a French study in which they concluded that 1, 700 of their cavalry had been saved from musket fire in a single battle in the SYW.

Hi FK!

Chris Duffy has written prolifically on the period, could you help with a reference, perhaps?  I have most of his books.

Many thanks in advance,

Mollinary

[fsn]

Having consulted my library (yes, real books!) I see that I was sort of wrong. French cuirasses were not proof at short range. Private Morris said that they "the armour was not ball-proof and firing at 12 paces, the  steady square repelled their repeated charges" (from The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon, Gunther E Rosenberg, Batsford, London 1977).

Similarly Haythornthwaite (Napoleonic Sourcebook, Guild Publishing, 1990) asserts that the armour was "no longer proof against musketry at short range". He also notes that the weight was a great disadvantage. However, he says that at Eckmuhl, fully armoured French cuirassiers inflicted 13 deaths to one in melee against Austrian cuirassiers with chest plate only. In my opinion that may have as much to do with morale and training as a backplate, but I stick to my rule of a minor benefit vs infantry, bigger one against cavalry and no benefit against artillery.

I also apologise to the forum for using the term "proofing" without explanation. It was rude.

[Hertsblue]

I've always thought that it was far more important in cavalry v. cavalry combat to have a big, strong horse under you, rather than any sort of armour. Our rules have always classified shock cavalry as "heavy" regardless of whether or not they wore body-armour. Big men on big horses take a deal of stopping.

As for cuirasses being bulletproof, I would have thought the point was academic, since a hit by a musket-ball on the armour, even if it failed to penetrate, would almost certainly knock the rider out of the saddle.

[Maenoferren]

HAving done mounted sword training as a lancer, one of your movements is to swipe backwards as if you have gone through an enemy line of cavalry, one of the defences is to swing your sabre over your right shoulder to your left buttock to prevent said slice being to your spine. This could account for the casualties as described by FSN? Just a thought.
Having charged British squares (and been charged whilst in one) it is pretty scary on both sides of that coin.

[Hussargeneral]

I agree with Hertsblue, the cuirassier was a big man on a big horse, they were the elite and they knew it, this conferred a feeling of superiority over the opponent. The advantage of the cuirass may well have been one of morale, the trooper felt safer (regardless of the truth of this) and therefore performed better.  The Saxon Cuirassiers often fought without the Cuirass (I remember reading that the Zastrow Regt charged the Great Redoubt at Borodino without their armour) and were widely recognised as some of the finest heavy cavalry in Europe. There are accounts of French Infantry using abandoned cuirasses as soup pots!
As regards the French Cuirassiers beating the Austrian Cuirassiers 13:1 in casualties, this could be due to any number of factors....surprise, caught while changing formation etc. not necessarily down to the lack of a back plate, and quite possibly a little bit of Francophile hysteria.
Napoleon told Jerome not to raise a cuirassier Regt in Westphalia because of the cost and better value to be gained from other types of cavalry ( he was ignored!)
In most of the rules I use, Cuirassiers gain a benefit to charge (better Morale) but don't reduce casualties due to the cuirass.

[fsn]

Gosh! Aren't we're having a proper discussion?

Big men on big horses. 

I've done a bit more digging and the consensus seems to be that the cuirass was too heavy and cumbersome. They were, however, useful protection in a cavalry melee. 

As with all things, there must have been a compromise. I don't believe that the cuirass had no value, however it's protection must have come at a price in mobility.

[mollinary]

Perhaps the question for Wargamers is "At what level does this matter?"  Does it affect battle outcome, or only melee?  Isn't it all a bit, micro-scale?  Do better boots give infantry a move advantage?  Does an extra inch on a bayonet give them a plus one in combat?  Does a higher shako lead to more shots going over their heads?  What we do know is these men were not invulnerable , and they were not unstoppable. What would we be trying to create,if we gave Cuirassiers more pluses?  Resist the temptation to create supermen!

Mollinary